No seriously, whatever happened to the female on her back, looking up at her male partner? It's my favorite position, naturally, but it's virtually impossible to find any more. It's all RCG and ridiculous, unnatural and uncomfortable-looking positions that no one in their right mind would do in real life, but add to it that hardly any porn is ever filmed ON A BED any more. It's all people hanging off couches and contorting themselves badly for the sake of the camera. I've got plenty of early 90s flicks with it, and it's standard in every JAV I got. So really, when did porn stop bearing any resemblance to how people fuck in real life?
From a camera man's point of view, missionary is the single worst position to try and film. The way human bodies fit together in that position casts nothing but shadows right where all the action is taking place. Good one for "couples" type porn, but not so good for the pervs who want the penetration right up front and on display. RCG is awesome for displaying the girl, the penetration, and obscuring the view of whatever dude is providing said penetration. It makes sense when you think of it that way.
[Link]
Ordell Deactivated User
1042 Posts 6/05
Posted - Apr 10 2011 : 12:59AM
I've got a boatload of examples of missionary that works, with great camerawork and lighting showing penetration as clear as a painful RCG hanging off a couch. They were doing it 20 years ago and it's done in virtually every JAV I get now. You're excusing the incompetence of the industry directors and cameramen, really.
Haley Cummings summed it up best for me in a pre-scene interview. Haley: My names Haley Cummings Mick: Cummings because you cum so many times Haley: A lot of times Mick: How you cum baby Haley: Positions that we don't do on camera Unfortunately, there are obviously consumers that prefer passionless penetration shots over hot sex. Consumers are even hunting through poorly produced amateur porn to find the latter. After reading through many of the posts here, I'm convinced the industry is missing a big market, either intentionally or from a lack of awareness. Even when they do manage a believable female orgasm, an increasing number of camera men think its a good time to walk up and stick the camera in her face.
Shooting missionary does come with extra challenges, but they can certainly be dealt with. And I certainly would like to see more of it. Mostly because of the added intimacy...two people making eye contact (dare I suggest a smile?) can be really hot if there's some chemistry. And if it makes the woman get off, isn't that good for all of us? Don't get me wrong, I love me some reverse cowgirl, and some of the more acrobatic positions (visual stimulus counts), but Im all for more of the missionary.
Another reason RCG is "awesome" is that the cameramen tend to back away when there's RCG happening, in order to fully show all that stuff you just listed. OTOH the cameramen tend to zoom zoom closer closer on the penis during most other positions. When they do that standing fuck with the guy lifting the girl, it's about 50/50 whether the cameraman will zoom out (presumably to show the viewer that this dude is actually lifting this girl up in the air), or zoom in (presumably because the accessibility of the crotch shot is too irresistible to pass up a tight zoom to the balls). I wonder if they are actually thinking about what they're doing and how it will look in the final production, or is it all done on autopilot, based on years of doing the same thing they always did, which was based on imitating what others were always doing.
Missionary is fine as long as it's not the only position in the video. It does provide an opportunity for intimate connection between two performers. For me, it's an issue of balance. Too much mish doesn't work, but the intimacy adds to the video. Since I usually offer raw footage, the publisher can edit the scene however they choose. My experience is they leave those parts in, but want other positions that showcase penetration as well. That provides them the opportunity to include both. I've never been told not to include mish in a scene.
Just another bare bum in the shiower 1739 Posts 12/04
Posted - Apr 11 2011 : 1:16AM
It can work well when the guy is holding the girl's legs and can open her up for the camera. I have seen some great scenes of late where the guy has kept her legs wide apart in missionary - most notably the Anthony Rosano and Kagney Linn Karter scene in the Silence of the Lambs parody where he sucked her toes during missionary. Definitely my favourite position.
This sounds more like what I've seen called Deck Chair rather than straight missionary. If they're facing each other and she's got her legs folded back so he can suck on her toes, I don't consider this missionary. If she just has her legs spread wide in missionary, I'm not seeing how he could suck her toes....??? If there was an intimate face-to-face connection, she could suck her own toes at the same time.....right???
Just another bare bum in the shiower 1739 Posts 12/04
Posted - Apr 11 2011 : 6:29AM
She was flat on her back with one leg splayed out sideways and the other bent back towards her tummy with the toes in his mouth. I consider that position missionary, as the guy has the option to stay upright on his knees and give a good open camera angle (like they do in every JAV scene) or lean forward and have a good time but totally fuck up the shot.
^ There are many face-to-face variations and missionary is just one. Kneeling missionary is another and then there are various ones with her legs spread or folded back. All depends on how specific you want to get with your definitions. Any of the 'legs bent back' or with his body at 90degrees to hers allows for better camera access than straight missionary. For me, missionary means only one thing, she's on the bottom facing up with her legs spread far enough for him to have access while he's on top facing her. They're both horizontal and aligned with his legs between her basically straight legs. Anything else is another position, and another way to enjoy each other.
[Link]
Fernandez Deactivated User
781 Posts 12/08
Posted - Apr 11 2011 : 8:33AM
The problem with this sexual position is that the missionary position is not as good at delivering pleasure to women. The man's pelvis does stimulate the clitoris in this position, and it offers great intimacy through face-to-face contact. But, the angle of the penis does not allow for deep penetration or stimulation of the G-spot (a spot on the front wall of the vagina, believed by some experts to be a stimulus for orgasm in women). Some women also complain that this sex position doesn't provide enough clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm. While the missionary position is a popular sexual position in the United States, it is not that popular worldwide. Alfred Kinsey's groundbreaking studies on sexuality in the mid-20th century found that as many as 70 percent of U.S. men reported using just this sex position, to the exclusion of all others.
One of the questions I always ask is 'what's her favorite position and why'. Almost universally it's doggie because it seems to hit the right spot.
[Link]
trout bum Deactivated User
"I'm Not Here To Suck My Own Cock!" 2145 Posts 5/10
Posted - Apr 11 2011 : 9:22AM
Almost every sex scene you watch includes the mish. It is one of the usual four positions always used. Mish,doggy,cow girl, and reverse cow girl. My favorite both to watch and in my personal life is "the spoon". By entering the woman in this position, you get to see full penal entry either in the vagina or the ass. Kissing and clitoral stimulation is possible without obstructing the view. My lady also claims it is the best position for stimulation of her G Spot. It is very relaxing for both partners and you can caress your woman's breast at the same time.
I think Ordell (the OP) was referring to the /contorted/ missionary position, and contortion in general, that the male performers and directors condition females into so we can "see that shit" at all times. It's kind of a cross between the spoon that you like, and actual missionary. Whatever you call it, nobody enjoys doing that in real life, and very few can pretend that they do. Also worth mentioning is that contortion of the body for the camera removes its symmetry, and symmetry is a hard coded feature of attractiveness.
I think the OP makes a very good point. I too have been really missing the standard missionary position. Why can't they just do that normal position for a while, with her legs spread in the normal manner? I don't need to see the penetration up close all the time and the variation that has her legs pulled wide apart or has one leg on his shoulder with the other one open sideways (I know, they do this so the camera can see the penetration) is all too common these days. Pull the camera back and allow the missionary position to be shown, with normal sounds by both actors and little/no music. As long as he has truly penetrated her there is no reason this can't work. One of the reasons I was asking for the movie My First Time 9 in another thread was that there was an EXCELLENT display of missionary in that video and over 10 years later I still remember it!
Exactly. It's not mandatory to see the penetration in every frame, especially if it has to come at the expense of capturing a natural, heated intercourse.
[Link]
Ordell Deactivated User
1042 Posts 6/05
Posted - Apr 25 2011 : 12:37AM
Because they don't use beds. This has flabbergasted me for some time. The porn biz spends who knows how much to rent mansions and then they do all the scenes on couches. Have you ever tried having sex on a couch? It's at best uncomfortable. JAV just throws a mattress on the floor of wherever they are filming. Does it look cheap? Yeah, but you get great angles, too, that don't look painful for the performers.
One aspect of missionary position that I really appreciate: too many scenes have a mechanical feel, where there is little apparent emotional connection between the performers (even if there is none, could you act a little?). In real, face-to-face missionary, I love just seeing the woman put her arms around the man, or even just stroke his shoulders, or in some way make a stab at an affectionate touch. Yes, I know, this means you aren't seeing a graphic penetration at the same time. Can we have an occasional moment or two that shows something else?
[Link]
Ordell Deactivated User
1042 Posts 6/05
Posted - Apr 25 2011 : 1:16AM
Not with today's pummel/abuse/degrade porn, no. We've seen threads before, asking what happened to intimacy, kissing, oral on the woman, etc. It all stems from the same problem. Today's porn is just awful.
Great photo ordell. That looks much more natural. Now if the camera man could also get a sideways view of that couple which shows the woman in her entirety (yes, even her shoe-less feet) in that position we would be rockin' and rollin'. I want to see the context shot of her entire body and see how she reacts to the pleasure and sexual encounter. No need for screaming. Just be natural, be yourself. It's a beautiful thing.
[Link]
trout bum Deactivated User
"I'm Not Here To Suck My Own Cock!" 2145 Posts 5/10
Posted - Apr 25 2011 : 9:59AM
WEHT happened to the missionary position??? I don't know what your talking about. Wifey and I tried it out yesterday morning and it didn't appear to be broken to us!!! Seem to be working just fine. Edited by - trout bum on 4/25/2011 10:00:46 AM
Very good ordell. But again, why have they chopped off her feet?? Why can't we see the couple in their entirety? They only show her feet if she's wearing heels. :(
^It's not about the heels. It's about the commonly-held belief (amongst porn cameramen/editors) that anything below mid-calf is unimportant. I want to see the heels, and believe me, the heels-wearing girls get chopped all the time.
So much porn now is spooning with one leg raised, which looks so awkward and uncomfortable that I skip it, or leave it on the shelf if it's on the cover. Even if both her legs are down, it still looks like an awkward way to fuck, as much as RCG or piledriver. Very relaxing sounds nice, but I might dislocate a joint if I try it. I'd rather see mish with the woman on top.
[Link]
trout bum Deactivated User
"I'm Not Here To Suck My Own Cock!" 2145 Posts 5/10
Posted - Apr 25 2011 : 10:05PM
^^^Doesn't sound like spooning is part of your repertoire. Probably never fucked a woman who is pregnant. I sure she would inform you that that is a preferred position for comfort. Try entering your lady in this position with one leg between hers. I will guarantee after you both cum you'll will feel like just laying still locked together and possibly even fall asleep. If any position is totally unnatural and uncomfortable it's RCG. It is shot for show only. Bet their aren't too may couples who ever fuck in the way.
You'd be surprised.....for guys that enjoy the look and feel of their partner's ass, RCG gives then a view that really gets them off. Think of the variations they can enjoy.....they can sit up and reach around to fondle both breasts, pull her back on top of them to smell and feel her hair on their face, finger her pussy while staying deep inside her. Lots of possibilities. My experience is many guys enjoy it.
[Link]
trout bum Deactivated User
"I'm Not Here To Suck My Own Cock!" 2145 Posts 5/10
Posted - May 1 2011 : 10:12AM
^^^^ You can do all those things in doggie position plus thrust deeper and it's way more comfortable. You can also kiss her neck, her back and spread her asshole for a better look.
I agree that the doggie is a far better position for both parties as it is a more natural position that allows gravity to work in your favour. Reverse cow girl is getting to be quite common in porn and I am not too thrilled with it. It looks unnatural and there is no eye contact possible. I'm just looking at her back and sitting in shadow plus it's easier for your d-ck to spring out of her.
Directors are incompetent. They'd rather show the most uncomfortable and unrealistic positions, just so they can show penetration, with no real views of the rest of the female body - at least in terms of its natural form. (E.g, pile driver is not natural form) My two favorite positions are missionary and regular cowgirl, with the camera facing the front of the woman's body, not the closeup of penetration or just an overall back shot. I cannot get over how stupid it is to show hours and hours of women's backs, just so you can show a penis going into them. Oh and when I say missionary - I don't mean where the guy is perpendicular to her. Yeah it is challenging to still show her beautiful body, but it can be done - and you get the intimacy that is involved when people are truly into each other.
[Link]
Ordell Deactivated User
1042 Posts 6/05
Posted - May 1 2011 : 1:10PM
Not to sound like a broken record, but RCG works nice on a bed. On a couch it has to hurt. When on a bed, the girl can lean forward. I've noticed that Asian girls like to do this: they get into RCG and lean forward, ie., away from you. In porn, most RCG on a bed forces the girl to lean back and support herself on her arms. Tera Patrick used to bitch endlessly about this, saying she couldn't hold herself up. The forward lean has the slightly uncomfortable effect of pulling your dick down toward your feet (since it's pointing up at your head when you are hard), but it makes them go crazy. Even moreso than regular cowgirl. I don't dig the loss of face to face, but it does make them go nuts. Only Asian girls do this to me. Dunno why. Plus I can sit up and turn it into a sitting doggie style. But I would never, ever, do it porn style, with my back on the couch and my feet on the floor, effectively arching my back into a backbend. That looks so uncomfortable and painful.
In my experience, RGC does rock. Every girl I've slept with has gotten off or at least come close in some variation of RGC. Rubbing her clit and fondling tits are far easier in RGC than doggy.
[Link]
trout bum Deactivated User
"I'm Not Here To Suck My Own Cock!" 2145 Posts 5/10
Posted - May 1 2011 : 10:24PM
^^^^ I could see where RCG could work for some women, especially if she is just looking to get fucked and the guy is really unattractive or she doesn't want to look at the dude. In my opinion RCG is not very intimate position. The girl is bobbing up and down on the cock and probably just staring at the ceiling.
This obsession with penetration is the root of many of the problems that make modern porn seem fake and artificial. They don't seem to understand that the novelty of watching a dick go in and out of a hole wore off by 1980. The eroticism of a sex scene comes from the way the people interact and respond to the pleasure. That should be the main focus of any director with common sense. If penetration is captured in the shot, great. But for fox sake, don't resort to gimmicky, unrealistic positions and drain all the heat from the scene just to showcase the most mechanical part of sex.
[Link]
trout bum Deactivated User
"I'm Not Here To Suck My Own Cock!" 2145 Posts 5/10
Posted - May 2 2011 : 1:12AM
^^^ Maybe porn directors are trying to get this kind of fucking approved as an Olympic sport. You know extra style points for the most creative positions.
No doubt cowgirl's better, but actually I think it is the angle of penetration, similar to doggy but working against gravity, that makes it a pleasurable experience. I've heard more than one star mention RGC as a good position, if done right.
I think the thing with a proper missionary fuck is that there is not much to see - in a graphic way. It is very romantic and they can see each others faces etc, but it is hard to get good shots of her pussy and the guys cock. And I remember porn in the 70's with endless shots of guys up in the air doing missionary pounding away, with not much happening, and then close ups for several minutes on the guys face (WTF) Reverse cowgirl is nice to look at. But I think the spoon is the ones that gets the girls going. And what about the girls flat on their tummy with a nice fuck from behind, you get to see some nice shots of their arse and pussy.
[Link]
Ordell Deactivated User
1042 Posts 6/05
Posted - May 2 2011 : 3:20AM
Dude I've posted examples of it working. You need bright lighting, white sheets for a strong background and a thin guy with no gut. Have him lean back a bit or extend his arms fully, and you can see right in. It can be done if people want to try.
Bump, because I'd like to watch some missionary, with her on top. If their bodies are not flush, or parallel, then it's not missionary. Perpendicular is cowgirl. An acute angle is between cowgirl and missionary. That may need its own position term. Edited by - charn on 1/6/2013 1:19:27 PM
Woman on Top could become a standard porn term, but that doesn't address the angle issue. When they are perpendicular or acute, the only action is penetration, and maybe some handwork. They can't use their mouths for anything but more monotonous jabbering pornspeak.
All For Us - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Apr 9 2011 : 11:58PM
